The Press FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1967. Population And Economics

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31523, 10 November 1967, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1967. Population And Economics

In his ventures into the field of economics since he joined the World Bank as agricultural adviser, Dr C. P. McMeekan, a former director of the Ruakura Animal Research Institute, has often found himself at variance with the experts. In July he said that the fall in wool prices was not so much “ the result “of competition from synthetics ” —the view expressed by virtually all economists and wool trade experts—but rather the result of devaluations by Argentina and Uruguay. This week he told the Waikato branch of the Economic Society of Australia and New Zealand that he could see no satisfactory long-term solution to New Zealand’s problems “ other “ than large-scale selective immigration of the kind “ that, in such short time, had lifted Australia from “ the status of a second-class nation to become one “ of the most promising countries of the world ”, This statement, also, is at variance with virtually all the published views of economists. The continued prosperity of Australia is generally ascribed to the discovery and exploitation of new mineral resources, the heavy investment of foreign capital in Australia, and restrained monetary and fiscal policies. Population growth figures modestly, if at all, in such analyses.

The Monetary and Economic Council, in a report on immigration requested by the Government last year, showed that New Zealand’s population had increased over the previous 15 years at a slightly higher rate than Australia’s. “In every one of the “ 16 calendar years listed ”, the council noted, “ the “New Zealand rate of natural increase was sub- “ stantially higher than the Australian. In spite of “ the greater attention paid to immigration in “Australia, the New Zealand percentage increase “ due to immigration was virtually the same in two “ years, and higher in a further two ”, If the Australian immigration policy alone had done so much for Australia in that period, why had the New Zealand policy—scarcely any smaller in proportion, and certainly more selective —not achieved the same for New Zealand?

“ There is no future for this country in terms “of the existing standard of living unless we “ populate ”, Dr McMeekan said: when New Zealand was adequately populated a high proportion of New Zealand’s output would be consumed locally at “ realistic and dependable prices ”, and the nation’s dependence on farm exports would attain “ manage- “ able proportions ”, New Zealand consumes 3 per cent of the wool produced in the country, 7 per cent of the lamb, and perhaps 20 per cent of the milk and dairy products. If local consumption of these products is to be increased so as to reduce farm exports to “ manageable proportions ”, population must be increased to many times its present three million. Desirable though this might be, is it a practicable aim for this generation of New Zealanders or even the next generation?

Discussing the prospects of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, Dr McMeekan said New Zealand’s economic position would be immediately and seriously jeopardised. Experts in international trade will accept this judgment of Dr McMeekan’s, though they may not share his confidence that a “ strategy to meet the various “ eventualities has already been worked out by those “ responsible—the Treasury, the Department of “ Industries and Commerce, and the producer “ boards ”. The only “ strategy ” hinted at by spokesmen for these organisations has been a warning that New Zealand will need to find other markets for its butter and lamb, or else produce other commodities for export. These are not attractive alternatives to the present pattern of production and marketing: no-one would expect the radical reshaping of an economy which has evolved over 80 years to be painless. As for the “ possibilities of a Pacific “ common market with Australia, Malaysia, Formosa, “the Philippines, Japan, and New Zealand” mentioned by Dr McMeekan, a Japanese study has shown that the greatest advantages would accrue to Japan, and that New Zealand could expect to increase, not reduce, its trade deficit.